Jeb Bush Criticizes "Obama-Clinton" Foreign Policy?

Come on, Jeb.....  You've got to be kidding.

After hearing of Hillary Rodham Clinton's official entrance into the 2016 Presidential Race, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said:

We must do better than the Obama-Clinton foreign policy that has damaged relationships with our allies and emboldened our enemies. 

From  Molly Middle's America at Facebook. 

No, Jeb.

Do you really think that the American public won't forget that it was the BUSH foreign policy...  the foreign policy that your brother presided over.. that damaged relationshps and emboldened our enemies?  And led us into unnecessary, unending wars and altercations that we are still trying to resolve?

I certainly do hope that the American people don't have memories that are that short. 

John Kerry chimes in.

John Kerry, current Secretary of State who succeeded Hillary Clinton, can't jump into partisan politics, but he was asked about her tenure as Secretary of State by George Stephanopoulos on one of the Sunday morning talk shows:  

As you know, your predecessor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, announcing for president today. And already, her tenure as secretary of state is in the crosshairs.  Marco Rubio is calling her the architect of a failed foreign policy. Ted Cruz, “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy disaster.” Jeb Bush says, “It’s a mess.”

Kerry replied:   

Well, George, as you know, the secretary of state happily is able to not be involved in the presidential hurly-burly. I’m not going to get involved in it now.... 

But I will say that Secretary of State Clinton did a terrific job of rebuilding alliances that had been shredded over the course of the prior years. She spent a lot of time, as you know, working on a number of different issues, including the beginning of the effort with Iran, as well as the Gaza cease-fire and other things.

Politicususa continues:

The fact is that under the last Republican president, America managed to alienate or anger most of the world. George W. Bush’s go-it-alone, with us or against us foreign policy burned the vast majority of the country’s diplomatic alliances. 

Hillary Clinton was tasked with rebuilding those relationships. 

If Republicans want to make the presidential campaign about former Sec. Clinton’s record, they are going to regret opening that door. It is easy to remind voters of foreign policy chaos and tatters that were left behind after the last Republican named Bush was in office.

John Kerry didn’t get partisan in his comments, but he didn’t have to. The facts are more than enough. Republicans want to obsess over the Benghazi scandal while actively undermining and poisoning the work that the Obama administration is doing. Republicans want voters to believe that Obama’s foreign policy, and by extension Hillary Clinton’s, are failures. 

I'll repeat:  Let's just hope that the American people are sick enough of war and massive debts due to wars that they don't buy the Republicans' twisted finger-pointing.

(Photo above from Molly Middle's America at Facebook.   Please visit and like us!)

"Religious Freedom" or Bigotry?

Let's not forget:
Bigotry described as "religious freedom" is still bigotry.

Righties Get Charred Over Barbecue

Backyard barbecue craziness:

This is an excellent example of how the right-wing gets people to follow its primrose path to support the suicidal anti-human budgets and policies proposed by the Republicans and their corporate masters. 

Photo From the Kickoff  Barbecue at Boston University's School of Physics Students 

If you want to know why good, solid basically decent middle class people (who are not rich) support Republicans, you need go no further than barbecue craziness.    

Remember Nero fiddling while Rome burned?  Well, the Republicans are barbecuing while the Antarctica ice shelf falls apart and causes the oceans to rise 20 feet. 

"Obama's EPA is at it again!", they say.

The barbecue controversy is based on grants, small grants, $15,000 grants, that the Environmental Protection Agency ("Obama's EPA", as it is called in many rightie media outlets) made last October to STUDENTS to study various environmental issues and solutions.  

Even though the grant was awarded, as I mentioned,  last October, it has blazed through the right wing blogosphere over the past few days based on a Republican state senator from Missouri misrepresenting the issue, I would assume, to get some name recognition.  (You can click on that link if you want to know who he is as I'm not going to give him any name recognition.)
  

What are people who lean Democratic concerned about?

Now, most people who lean Democratic have not heard of this barbecue insanity.  Most people who lean Democratic are more concerned about the new Republican budget which budgets huge numbers for defense and cuts for everything else, like Medicare and health care.   Most people who lean Democratic are more concerned about climate change (yeah, there really is climate change!) that is contributing to the disastrous drought in California and the disintegration of the glaciers in Antarctica, disintegration that might cause a rise in the oceans of 10 to 20 feet over the next few decades and wipe out the homes of millions of Americans.  Those are among the things that most people who lean Democratic are concerned about.

"Government Intrusion!  Obama's going to send the Backyard Barbecue Police!"
 
But to Republicans and their sponsors..well, the barbecue controversy trumps all and it is an example of more "government intrusion".  ("The government is out of control!", claim the righties.)   Basically, Republicans claim that the government is going to do something it is not going to do, they get people to dislike government MORE based on this lie, then they get more support in their campaign, in this instance, to get rid of the EPA or other government regulations that we need.  

Barbecue Brouhaha

So here is what the brouhaha about barbecuing is REALLY about from the EPA's own website:

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded a total of about $45,000 in grants to three student teams at the University of California, Riverside, to design an innovative way to generate power, to develop a lawn mower, and to develop a backyard barbeque that will emit less air pollution. The students competed for grants by submitting research proposals to develop sustainable, alternative methods that address environmental challenges as part of EPA’s People, Prosperity and the Planet (P3) program. 

“These students are coming up with cutting-edge solutions for the most challenging environmental issues facing California, and the world,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “Each year, the projects created by student teams surpass our expectations.”

Despite this screaming headline at Yahoo--  

EPA considering regulations on backyard BBQ grills?--

there is nothing in the EPA announcement about regulating backyard barbecues.  There is nothing in the EPA announcement about forcing changes in propane grills.

There is nothing in the EPA announcement about a backyard barbecue police in the offing.  (Attention:  Sarcasm ahead.)  Since the righties would love to get rid of all "illegals", this could be a compromise:  Backyard police who check everybody's barbecues at the same time they ask for papers and round up illegals.  Would the righties like that proposal?  Backyard barbecuing oversight teamed with a plan to round up the illegals?  I'm being snarky:  I had to make that clear because I'm sure someone out there would think I was really proposing Backyard Brigades, and some might actually give up their rights to barbecue while breathing in mass quantities of smoky cow if it meant cleaning up those "illegals".   

Back to the EPA:

These three projects will each receive $15,000 grants.  Yikes, fifteen grand.  The right wing followers are complaining to the heavens about the $15,000 for this study,  but they won't say a peep about proposals to cut Medicare that may cost them hundreds and thousands of dollars over their lifetimes.  And most of these righties seem to have no problem with the government spending billions and trillions of "their tax dollars" on unending wars and unneeded pork for the defense industry.  But fifteen grand for research for the EPA?  Just more "government waste."

The Details

Just a final paragraph from the EPA site that describes this $15,000 project in detail:

Technology for the Reduction of Particulate Matter Emissions for Residential Propane BBQs 

The design will reduce fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions with a two-step process, minimizing the amount of grease that is volatilized via direct contact with an open flame, and secondary treatment to filter or catalyze particulate matter created during the cooking process. The primary approach is a preventative method that will remove the majority of grease drippings from the possibility of unwanted flare ups. A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray. The project hopes to limit the overall air pollution PM emissions from barbecuing and to alleviate some of the acute health hazards that a barbecue pit master can experience from inhalation.

Notice that the word "regulation" is not used one time.

Herman Cain Lies & Misleads Again

These conservatives lie and mislead their "flock" every step of the way.  Not surprising though.  Liberals are "sick" and "racist"?

Here's the latest from Herman Cain (Remember him?  He was on the Republican Clown Car back in 2012.) 

A screenshot of a post from Herman Cain's Facebook page; early March 2015.

Does Cain still have followers?

It seems as if Cain shouldn't have many followers anymore, but he still has hundreds of thousands, including a friend of mine, someone I worked with for many years and basically respect. The above post came across my newsfeed a few days ago, shared by that friend. 

Of course, Cain is trying to make liberals out to be "sick", "crazy" and racist. This is classic Republican propaganda: The LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS are racists, not the crazy Republicans, especially the Tea Party people.

The Situation is really much more complex..

The information below makes it clear that the situation, both the desire to get women on the $20 bill and the truth about Margaret Sanger herself, is much more complex than Cain's quick sensationalizing, rabble-rousing Facebook post would have you believe.

We need to remember that our conservative friends have been lied to and misled by people such as Cain every step of the way.  Not sure if there is any way we can "get" to so many of these people, including my friend.

The real story...

There is a group of women that wants to "banish" Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with a woman.  No, "they", a group named Women on 20's, are not insisting that Margaret Sanger and only Margaret Sanger should be on the $20 bill.  She's one of several women that the group is SUGGESTING might be honored on the twenty dollar bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The new group has come up with a list of 15 women it would like to see on the $20 bill instead, including Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Harriet Tubman.  Campaign organizers are targeting the 20 because 2020 will mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Of course the righties zeroed right in on the name of Margaret Sanger on the list.

First of all, as I just mentioned, Margaret Sanger is one of 15 people women on the list, and saying that "liberals want to put HER on the twenty dollar bill" as if she is the only name proposed, and as if the women's group speaks for all "liberals" is just a big lie.

Secondly, it's hard to reduce her contributions to women to the words "racist eugenicist". Anyone who reduces her to a "racist eugenicist" knows nothing about the woman, her work, or the time she lived in.  She was the daughter of a woman who went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49.  This was not atypical of women who lived just a few generations before us.

Wikipedia has a good article about her HERE which highlights both the good and the problematic of Margaret Sanger.

Some highlights:

• She wanted to curtail immigration.  She apparently did make a comment or two about "mongrels".  As my grandparents were immigrants in the early 20th century, she might have considered them "mongrels".  
• Though she was a great champion of birth control, as most of us know, she did have some ideas about pushing "birth control" for those who were unfit.  She did advocate coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" having children.  But she did denounce the Nazi's approach to eugenics.
• She apparently expressed racist thoughts; however, "such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities."  She opened a birth control clinic in Harlem in conjunction with the Urban League.  She earned praise from Martin Luther King.  More information on this at Wikipedia. 

So, as usual, the right-wingers lie, misrepresent, and turn good into bad.. and blame liberals.

It's always good to know what these people, people like Herman Cain, are thinking...  Their ascendancy in American life is a threat to all of us.

Hillary Clinton: She's all that stands between you and Republicans in the White House

Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton?

Most of the Facebook groups of which I am a member, many of the liberal sites and blogs I regularly follow, and many of my Facebook friends are pro-Elizabeth Warren Progressives. (Of course, Elizabeth Warren has clearly and emphatically and repeatedly denied that she is a candidate for the Presidency in 2016.)

Hillary Clinton

WS
Some of them insist that Hillary is no better than Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or Scott Walker; and some of them insist that they will refuse to vote for her.  She is too "Wall Street" for them.  (They think that Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker AREN'T "Wall Street"? Not sure I really understand that complaint in view of the opposition.)   

Well, I WILL vote for Hillary Clinton, though with reservations, and for a couple of very good reasons; the first one is of utmost importance:

 She will probably win.

Remember Watergate?

Let me put this in context:

I've been watching the movie about Watergate, All the President's Men, over the past few evenings. The movie was released in 1976 with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the young reporters.  If you don't recall or you are too young to remember, the Watergate scandal was not about a minor league break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters in the run up to the 1972 election; it was about Republican dirty tricks to knock off the strongest Democratic opponents; the opponents that actually could have BEAT Nixon and deprived the Republicans of Nixon's second term.

The Republicans WANTED to run against a Progressive in 1972. 

They went after Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, because apparently there were some polls in 1971 that showed that Muskie was the guy who could beat Nixon. Their campaign "operatives" wrote memos on Muskie campaign paper that seemed to portray Muskie as a bigot regarding French-Canadians in his home state of Maine.   They trashed his wife.  This contributed to the breakdown of the Muskie candidacy.  But we all have to remember that, what came out during the Watergate investigations, the Republicans WANTED Nixon to run against the progressive/liberal McGovern because they knew Nixon would beat McGovern.       

The 2016 version of Dirty Tricks

"Dirty tricks" are probably worse now with the unfiltered Internet; with talk radio, bloggers, and even Fox News free to say whatever they want to say about somebody, even if those statements are outright lies.  Every time I see someone portraying themselves as a liberal or progressive and insisting that Hillary is too "Wall Street" for them, I think about those dirty tricks; I wonder if anyone is funding this or that "Progressive" attack on Hillary Clinton.

They WANT Progressives to Stay Home.

The Republicans KNOW that Clinton can beat anybody now on the Republican clown car.  She continues to lead all comers in every poll.  So they will pound on her from every side and from the top and the bottom... and they will feed Progressives (or faux Progressives) anti-Clinton stuff as well.

They are hoping the Progressives will stay home and will allow Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie to move their conservative Republican war-mongering anti-people legions into the White House.  (And they would love to see Elizabeth Warren run in opposition to any of those now on the Republican clown car, because, as much as Progressives love her, she would probably lose.  As great as she is, she is fairly unknown and she never gets more than 15% on polls among DEMOCRATS!)

Actually, the second reason I would vote for Clinton is also of utmost importance:

Remember the Supreme Court!

No, Both Parties are NOT the Same, particularly when one party or the other is in the White House and nominating Cabinet officials and federal judges....  especially Supreme Court judges.

So my bottom line:  Even if you think Clinton is not progressive enough, defend her wherever you can with your life.

For Hillary Clinton is all that stands between all of us and Nixon/Bush/Reagan CPAC conservative types in the White House - and on the Supreme Court.

And if you really think that a Democratic administration headed by Clinton will be "no different" than a Republican administration headed by Jeb Bush or one of those other guys...  well, wake up, for heaven's sake.  Pull your head out of your ass. 

Related reading:

• March 18, 2015:  Allen Clifton at Forward Progressives just published  There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face
• March 13, 2015:  Jim Wright at his Stonekettle Station site talks about Republican war-mongering and mentions the election of 1968.  

A Mass Shooting In Texas County, Missouri: More Guns Are Needed!

"I remember thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness." 

Eight people in four different residences were killed in unincorporated Texas County, Missouri, last night and earlier this morning.  The shooter then killed himself.

Crime scene investigators gather, from Local Fox tv

Too Common            

These stories are unfortunately very common in these United States, even though eight people killed in a house-to-house shooting is somewhat extreme.

My first thoughts were:  Why do we have so many guns in this country?  And:  This is probably an area in which people have many guns.  The guy killed people in four different houses in rural Missouri.  What are the chances that there were NO GUNS in those four homes?  We don't know for sure, but if some of those people had guns, those guns did not protect them from this guy who was intent, for whatever reason, on killing people.

They were family.

OK:  It now appears that the people that were killed were COUSINS of the shooter. Good chance they allowed this man into their home... because they knew him. So how does having a gun (even if that gun is right by your side, loaded and ready) prevent a relative or a friend, someone you know, from walking into your home, engaging you in some kind of conversation, and then, without warning, pulling out a gun and shooting? We don't know the details yet, but it is unlikely that the victims saw this man as an intruder... He was family.

The Gun Nuts square off against the Gun Control people...

The short first comment to the MSN story made reasonable sense to me, as I felt the same way: 

Have we had enough of this? Or do you NRA nut jobs still want your guns?

Of course, her comment was answered by dozens who insist that these kinds of events show that we need MORE guns, and that somehow the more guns, the safer we will be:

News like this only reinforces why law abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms.  If you want to be an easy, vulnerable target, be my guest, but I like to be able to protect myself.

If this man walked into your house, would you want to be an NRA nut job and protect your family and self, or be as it appears you are and stand there and watch the person kill your family and then you. No offense, but I am glad your not the mother of my children or grand-children.

And then a barely legible comment claiming that more people were killed with hammers than assault weapons.  (That might be true... but we're talking about GUNS here, not necessarily assault weapons.  And I still don't believe that more people intent on inflicting harm on others did so with hammers vs. guns.)

up yours moron in 2010 more people were killed with hammers than assault rifles. Its horrible when it does but if you look at countries that have outlawed guns the rate of violent crimes has increased. We are a country of 300 t0 330 million with about 300 million guns yesterday 299,999,999 were not used in this act. As for reality I have my guns and I will use them in self defense or offense if the need arises. Bottom line if you don't' like it just post a sign on your house saying, " no nasty guns in this house ", see if that makes you sleep any better.

There's not much more to say about this polarizing issue. Few people who insist that guns make this a safer country will ever change their minds.  The people who believe that easy access to guns make this a more dangerous country will probably also not change their minds.

The bottom line to me is always this, however:  

Unless you have that gun loaded and right at your side at all times and you are a trained (and good) marksman, you will not be protected against an unexpected home invader.  

Unfortunately, if that gun is loaded and right at your side, there is a much better chance that you or a family member will die from some kind of gun accident. And if you are not a trained (and good) marksman, even if you manage to get that gun into firing position, you will probably not be able to either pull the trigger or shoot the intruder... if indeed you have the time to figure out if the intruder is really an intruder and not just your drunken neighbor who somehow accidentally blundered into your home in a boozy fog.

I know men with guns.

My father was an auxiliary (volunteer) policeman when we were kids.  He was required to undergo regular and vigorous training in the use of his gun to continue his work.  He always had a gun in the house.  As soon as he came off of duty, he'd empty it and lock it into its case.  He did not feel safe until that gun was unloaded and locked away.  Only then could he relax and tell us what went on while he was on duty.  

My husband was a Gunner's Mate in the military.  He owned guns during much of his life, and he was trained in their use.  He hasn't had guns in his home for a long time, and we have no guns here.  He had a few bad dreams from which he awoke...and found himself, still half asleep, with a gun in his hands, about to off an enemy that existed only in his nightmares.  He got rid of his guns.

Fun With a Gun    

The closest I ever came to a gun "event" was back in the 70's.  A few friends and I were out in the clubs (we were young), we met another group of young people, and decided, after the clubs closed, to go back to the apartment of one of the young women to continue partying.  The young woman had told us earlier that she had recently broken up with her boyfriend who was a cop.  What we didn't know is that he was still staying with her and hadn't moved out.

So when we came trooping in, loudly, about eight people, in the middle of the night, in various stages of intoxication, he was in the bedroom sleeping, with his gun on the coffee table in the living room.  We were stunned when he came screaming and storming out of the bedroom, not in a good humor.  Most of us scattered out the door; party over.....  but his drunken (ex) girlfriend picked up the gun and aimed it at him.   "I'm going to shoot you," she said.

The next half hour was spent with the cop and another friend talking her into putting down the gun, which she eventually did.  I remember sitting outside her door on the steps, in a still-slightly inebriated haze, thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness.  (We didn't call the cops because:   1. No cell phones back then and no access to the phone in the apartment. 2. The guy was a cop and there was some concern that he would get into trouble... or that our friend would get into trouble for threatening him with his gun.)  

So...  I don't like guns very much.  If people want them for target-shooting or even hunting, that's fine... But the idea that somehow you are going to save yourself or a family member if you have an arsenal in your living room is ..... silly.  And the idea that background checks or controls that keep mentally ill people from having firearms will somehow interfere with your right to be a member of "a well-regulated militia" is... absurd.

Meanwhile, eight more people are dead in Missouri.  

    

The "Left" and the "Right": Living in Two Different Realities

Two Different Realities?

I know that some people attempt to purge their pages and friends lists of conservative/radical Republican/Libertarian types, but I think it is important to know what these conservative and libertarian people are thinking and talking about -- as long as they are not insulting or annoyingly repetitive. 

Unfortunately, it often seems as if we live in two different realties, perhaps even two parallel universes. To be honest, most of the stuff I find shared by my right-leaning friends from rightie blogs and news outlets is incomplete, misleading, oversimplified and/or outright wrong. But a glance through something like the Washington Examiner or a blog like "The GOP Daily Dose" is like taking a walk in a nightmarish hell that doesn't fit the reality in which most of us live. 

Found HERE.  I lightened the image so that the people cheering their Fearless Leader were more obvious.

It's easy to say that all of this is foolishness and it should be ignored by better-informed people, but millions of people believe the stuff that these right-leaning blogs spout.  They accept these writings and memes at face value and don't bother to even follow links or do some basic investigation.

And, of course, the rightie press and media has done such a complete job villainizing President Obama that those who "lean right" accept, without a second thought, anything that portrays the President as either an "incompetent who spends most of his time playing golf" or a totalitarian Big Brother.

Let's take the image above, found at a right-leaning blog HERE. It took me a lot of searching to try to put the whole story together, and I'm still investigating.

Now, there are two different stories here: 

The first is the absolute disconnect between the articles that Democrats/progressives/liberals post and publish and the articles that Republicans/righties/libertarians post and publish.  If you look at stories coming across your Facebook newsfeed from right-leaning friends or you look at articles on these right-leaning blogs and news venues, you won't even recognize that these right-wing authors are writing about the same issues in the same country.

The second is the story about the Federal Election Commission and what it is actually trying to do or not do.  Whether you agree with the Democrats or the Republicans on the FEC (and it is always an evenly divided commission in an attempt to be non-partisan), it should be ultimately clear that this is not about some kind of tyrant Big Brother Obama keeping people from reading whatever it is they want to read on the Internet-- Nor is it about Big Brother Obama getting ready to round up people who don't agree with the "Government" into some of those non-existent FEMA camps that some on the right like to promote.

I'm going to publish this article now, encouraging people to actually spend a few minutes (if you haven't recently done so-- and only if you have the stomach for it) looking at the articles published in right-leaning venues.  It's an important first step in understanding why our country is so divided.. and so divided on EVERYTHING, every issue it seems, more so than in the past.

Free Speech or Oligarchy?

Meanwhile, I'll track down the issues involved in the FEC controversy...  The Democrats on the FEC want to do SOMETHING to protect our democracy; while the Republicans on the FEC rail about "free speech" and feel that any kind of restrictions on the Fat Cats may interfere with our rights to "Free Speech".

How has the takeover of our democracy by the richest among us turned into an argument about "Free Speech"? Just ponder that for a minute or two or more.

And, for the record, I'm not getting a penny from anybody, right, left, or middle, to write this blog.  I do make some money from the ads and that's it.